So...what do we make of the fundraising partnership of Murdoch/ Clinton in light of

[Lerkfish]

the recent Fox runup to the debate, where ailes made the Obama "joke"?

Is there a connection there at all?

[LSparkle]

1. Hmm, wasn't Faux also the channel that REALLY pushed the madrassa story?

All these little things may be starting to pile up ...

[Lerkfish]

2. I'm just asking the question.

Fox has certainly targeted Obama, and the owner of Fox is fundraising for Clinton.

I see a potential for conflict of interest there, myself.

but....I don't have a dog in that fight since I don't buy into either of them being the best candidate yet, but I think the question should be asked.

[Dr Fate]

5. It's weird- because for a while there- some DU Hillary peeps were FOR the Fox news debates too.

There are some threads out there where they were making similar pro-FOX news debates arguments the DK supporters are making now.

I think they wanted the FOX news debates to happen at first, but were relieved to have an out when Ailes made the remark- the last thing they wanted was a one-on-one with Hill vs. DK. (I am speculating that Obama would have dropped out b/f Hill- but maybe I am wrong)

[The Magistrate]

3. No Such Partnership Exists, Sir

Murdoch gives money to a wide variety of political figures; all major capitalists do. The sums he donated to Sen. Clinton are trifles, and hugely outweighed by his contributions to various Republicans.

Ailes shot himself, and his network, in the foot rather badly. Sen. Edwards and the Nevada Democrats did the right thing, and it is to be hoped they have started the ball rolling towards a complete discrediting of Fox as a legitimate news network.

[Lerkfish]

7. well, relationship, then. Murdoch publicly sponsored a fundraiser for her

Did he do the same for any other candidate? he might have and I'm unaware of it, I'm just asking the question.

[Dr Fate]

9. That fact would set her apart just a bit- Did Murdoch personaly sponsor fundraisers for other DEMS?

BTW- just so we are on the up & up here- do you have a link for where FOX persoanly sponsored a fundraiser for Hill?

I'm not saying Hill is in some collusion w/ FOX-I just cant see FOX backing that 100%- I'm just trying to get all the facts on the table here...

[Lerkfish]

12. there's lots, but here's one:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0509-09.htm

[Dr Fate]

14. I'll note the orig. article came from the Financial Times as well. Thanks. n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

8. I doubt there is a "partnership" in any true sense either.

At best, Hillary met with them in an effort to get herself on TV more-which I cant fault...However, at this point in time, DEMS seem to have an idea to not use FOX so much as before...

I hope you are right- that all DEMS, including Hill, are going to stay united in an effort to marginalize and discredit FOX news...Hopefully DK will get on board with the rest of us...

[MADem]

48. Oh, now, now....you're ruining it by being logical and telling it like it is!!!!

It's way more fun to ascribe superhuman powers to the corporatists at Faux, who simply wave bright colors, patriotic themes, simplistic solutions, and large breasted, red lipped women at stupid people, causing them to tune in and bellow "YEAH!"

Hypnosis, I tell ya...hypnosis!!!

[wyldwolf]

4. it's all a big conspiracy, I tell ya!

A review of FEC and other data by The Washington Post found that Kerry has raked in millions from U.S. corporations, especially financial companies such as Citigroup and telecom firms, including Rubert Murdoch's News Corp., which also flew one of his Senate staffers to California for a meeting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64727-2004Jan30?language=printer

Now.. let me see if I can dig out the old link where Howard Dean took Murdoch money...

[still_one]

11. It isn't a conspirisy, it is people who are greedy for power

frankly that they would continue to use Carville as an advisors says more to me about what they are all about than anything else

Yes, I have a problem with bill clinton also. His reckless behavior DID f**K the party, especially after he was warned by advisors NOT to screw around

His communication act set us up for the right wing domination we have today

His trade agreements were to the benefit of corporations, at the expense of our workers

It is time for fresh blood

No, I am not going out of my way to bash the Clintons, it is that we have so much BETTER candidates who were right about the IWR. It wasn't that long ago Hillary was banging the stay the course drum, funny how opinion polls change a politicians point of view.

I want someone who knew that the War Powers Act was their for a reason, and that there was a reason for seperation of powers. I want someone who doesn't vote on a bankrupcy bill that provides exceptions to the wealthy, and screws the regular guy

[Dr Fate]

13. I wouldnt get caught arguing "conspiracy" semantics either- but the Carville thing is weird.

He is close to Cheney- and he tried to squeeze out Dean- I wont get caught in the semantics of whether there is a "conspiracy"- but I'll note that neither Carville nor his wife want Dean around.

No shawdowy conspiracy here either- but unless other posters can provide examples where FOX HOSTED fundraiders for other DEMS, I'd say that sets Hill apart, even if it's just a little bit- from the rest.

Apparently this was all done in the open and not in secret, and reported by the Financial times, so we cant really build a strawman by suggesting this a shadowy "conspiracy"...

[still_one]

21. I didn't know Carville was close to Cheney, I thought it was just his wife

I knew that Carville doesn't like Dean, and I think a lot of that is jealousy

I essentially agree with you comments, but I would NEVER trust Carville, right or wrong, because of his wife's association with Cheney

[Dr Fate]

24. I know all of my Girlfriend's friends and employers. He is close to Cheney in proximity.

She probably tells him things about Cheney, he probably tells her things about DEMS that Cheney hears- that was what I meant.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

[still_one]

27. agreed, and that is not a good thing /nt

[wyldwolf]

63. but did Kerry and Dean take Murdock money?

[blm]

16. Big difference in CYA money that Rupert donated and hosting fundraisers for Hillary.

No one believes Rupert really supported Gore, Kerry or Dean or any other Dem he donated a small amount of money to at the time.

And considering that Kerry never took corporate pac money in any of his senate contests, te idea that he is beholden to any industry is laughable, no matter HOW it gets spun for ANY article.

Let them try and spin the fact that Kerry is the one who submitted Clean Money, Clean Elections bill in the senate and has been a 22 year advocate of public financing of campaigns - and THAT is why MOST corporate money lined up AGAINST Kerry.

[Dr Fate]

18. Besides "conspiracy" suggests this was a shadowy, behind the scenes thing- it wasnt.

Hillary openly accepted a fundrasing event hosted by FOX- it was even reported by a mainstream source- The Financial Times...

Are we aware of any other DEMS who had fundraisers hosted for them by FOX news? If so, I'd like to know about them too.

[The Magistrate]

60. Nonesense, Ma'am

No one believes he supports Sen. Clinton, either.

He does suspect she may well take the Presidency, and this means it is better to do her a favor or two early, as a species of protection money, which is what a great proportion of political donoations can be best and most fairly described as....

"Nice little place you have here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it...."

[blm]

67. Of course it's protection money - Clintons protect Bushes so Murdoch has every interest

in protecting the Oval Office from an open government Democrat who might open the books on BushInc.

Hillary Clinton is the PREFERRED Democrat for Murdoch IF there is to be a Dem administration. The Clintons have already proved they will ignore the crimes of office of BushInc. Bill would not pursue any of the outstanding matters of IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning that he inherited when he took office.

Clintons won't pursue ANY crimes of office of Bush2, either.

It is NONSENSE to believe otherwise.

[The Magistrate]

68. That Is Quite The Procrustean Bed, Ma'am, You Sleep In

Political life, however, is not such a one size fits all, whatever has to be hacked off or streched to make the fit, sort of thing....

The only fact here is that Murdoch arranged a fund-raising event attended mostly by employees of his offices in New York who are themselves Democrats. Good internal relations for him, and a small but largely meaningless favor he can do at no cost to himself for someone he has reason to believe may, despite his own best efforts to ward it off, wind up being President of the United States.

The rest of this is simply a fixed idea you have isolated from a great number of unconnected events, for reasons that escape me, and that it would probably be unkind to speculate deeply on.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you, it's what you know that ain't so."

[blm]

69. And we KNOW that coincidence theorists abound because the establishment

powerstructure needs them in place to pretend that the outstanding matters of IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning that Clinton inherited when he took office and chose to sweep under the rug, was somehow good for this country and in no way connected to the global terrorism and Iraq war policies this nation is involved in these days.

I leave you to your conscience.

That's how Bill claims now that he chose to handle Poppy Bush's crimes of office.

That worked out well for the 9-11 families and the people of Iraq, didn't it?

[The Magistrate]

70. 'Co-Incidence Theorist', Ma'am

Is one of those stretches of the mirror game that quite breaks the glass. It is understandable that persons who proclaim intricate connections between various events without a shred of real evidence to back their claims will not enjoy it being pointed out that they are in fact propounding articles of faith, and will hunt about for some sort of implement to salve their pride and force compliance with their imaginations, but this one will not do that, for it impresses no one but those already enrolled in the choir of the conspiracist confession.

[blm]

71. Save it for some one who believes that Clinton protected Bush1 for the good of our country.

Because I do not.

[The Magistrate]

72. Surely, Ma'am, You Do Not Imagine You Alone Will Read This Exchange?

We both address a much wider audience than one another....

[blm]

73. And most surely know that had THEY a choice in 1993 they would've chosen truth

and accountability for Poppy Bush and his cronies over secrecy and privilege and protection of BushInc.


Do you seriously believe that there are many people reading this forum who DON'T wish Clinton had chosen a fuller accounting for Bush and his cronies on all the outstanding matters left to his administration?

You think many people here are HAPPY that Clinton let Poppy off the hook on so many serious matters?

I don't. Join a corruption thread for a change, and ply your claim that IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning and Iraqgate aren't connected to today's matters.


Hey Democrats - Truth Matters.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[wyldwolf]

64. no really believes he supports Clinton. But did Kerry and Dean take his money? Yes.

[blm]

66. the same amount YOU or I could have given - 2000 bucks -

./

[wyldwolf]

74. unfortunately for you, you're wrong

[still_one]

6. To me it does matter who you associate with. It bothers me her closeness to Carville

who is married to mary matilian(sic), a cheney advisor

In my view it is all about power, and nothing about doing what is right for the people, and I for one am getting a little tired of it all

[MADem]

10. I think Faux loves power, and they're currying favor with a likely candidate

from the state of their US HQ, NY. This fundraising partnership happened well before Obama even came on the national scene, IIRC.

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/16535/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/nyregion/10hillary.html?ex=1304913600&en=ff6d1ba374427b83&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

To try to rewrite this OLD story in the context of Obams's fairly NEW candidacy is revisionist. IMO.

[Lerkfish]

15. so, once the "partnership" was announced, it dissolved, like mission impossible?

:shrug:

Just because Obama wasn't a threat at the time they entered into the symbiotic relationship does not mean that if Fox goes after Obama, its unrelated.

[MADem]

22. No, I didn't say that at all. Where did you get that?

Look, business and politics makes strange bedfellows.

Only a FOOL would think that Rupert Murdoch really gives a fuck about "politics."

He gives a fuck about politics only to the extent that they ensure that he can ENRICH HIMSELF.

If the prevailing attitude in America were that all retarded babies should be fed, alive, to lions at the zoo, he'd be for that.

He doesn't CARE about these issues that everyday people care about. He just cares about what fifty one percent of the country feels about those issues, so he can tailor his news organization to appeal to the broadest possible majority.

But, back to the main point:

The question was asked "What do we make of the Clinton and Murdoch relationship IN LIGHT OF Obama..."

The answer is, we make NOTHING of it. Obama wasn't in the ring then. The way the question is phrased makes it look like Murdoch saw Obama coming. Murdoch is not that omniscient. All Murdoch saw was a chance to back a strong horse, one from his company's state, so it makes sense on many levels for him. It also gave him a shot at looking "Fair and Balanced."

If you want to pull the string on the matter, you ask the question: Is Faux going after Obama to neutralize him in favor of a Clinton candidacy, given their fundraising history?

It's a small point, I grant you. But I don't think we should give the Faux idiots credit for an iota of foresight when it isn't deserved.

[Lerkfish]

33. well, actually that's what I meant.

"Is Faux going after Obama to neutralize him in favor of a Clinton candidacy, given their fundraising history? "

you stated it better than I.

[MADem]

39. And I would agree that this is probably true, too!

Right now, I'm guessing they think the stronger candidate is HRC. And they have motivation to support her, just as they have motivation to give money to Chuck Schumer.

They're HQ'd in NY, and those are their Senators...and if one of them becomes President, well, that can be good news for them, if they're playing ball with the winning candidate. They'll get to keep that seat in the newsroom they stole from Helen Thomas, maybe...!

[David Zephyr]

17. Murdoch regularly lunches with Bill and Hillary. Facts are stubborn.

I know this disturbs the Clinton crowd to have these "inconvenient truths" about the special relationship that Murdoch and the Clintons have had now for a few years (first exposed by the New York Observer), but facts are stubborn things.

If Hillary's vocal and proud sponsorship of the Iraqi War, the Patriot Act and the Homeland Defensed Department won't open the eyes of her supporters here at the DU, and...

If Hillary's self-serving, gratutious undermining of Congressman John Murtha's brave call last year to begin deployment of our troops out of Iraq won't deter their enthusiasm for her candidacy, and ...

If Bill Clinton's shameless and underhanded attempts to prevent Howard Dean from becoming the Chair of the Democratic National Committee doesn't phase them, and...

If Bill and Hillary's campaign spokespersons' ruthless attacking of Howard Dean right after the 2006 election didn't bother them...

Then don't expect the cozy relationship between the Clintons and Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corporation to make them think either.

As long as Fox continues lying about and smearing Senators Obama and Edwards, as long as Fox continues to demean Howard Dean, the Clintons are well served by Rupert Murdoch's nasty little propoganda machine called Fox News. Quid Pro Quo.

The Global Corporatists have anointed Hillary already as their choice for the Democratic Party in case the Republicans stumble. Ralph Nader's recent declaration that he will run should Hillary be the nominee is his way of pointing out how compromised Hillary and Bill already.

[Dr Fate]

19. Do you have a credible link that describes these lunches? I want all the facts on the table here.

And if true-are we aware of other DEM candidates who lunch with Far-Right FOX news execs?

[BeyondGeography]

20. Here's a background piece

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/nyregion/10hillary.html?ex=1304913600&en=ff6d1ba374427b83&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

They're capable of being cozy, but they can also turn on each other in a heartbeat. A pair of mercenaries, if you will.

[Dr Fate]

23. Very telling- I have to say it does resemble a "partnership"- even if a tennuous one..

However- to be 100% fair, unless I missed it on skim-I dont see anything in that about these "regular lunches."

I'm not going to take that claim to heart until I see some proof.

[BeyondGeography]

25. There's a bit of a there there, but not much of one

There are much better reasons to oppose HRC than this, IMHO.

[Dr Fate]

26. Fair enough. n/t

n/t

[MADem]

28. Ted Kennedy is GOOD FRIENDS with Orrin Hatch. John Kerry is GOOD FRIENDS with Trent Lott.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

People can disagree on issues and still have relationships.

We see it in families all the time.

And when it comes to politics, and donors, you ask yourself 'cui bono?' And if the answer is YOU, than the person holding out their hand is indeed your friend. In the case of bums like Murdoch, he's looking for something, too--a shot at appearing fair and balanced. A fulcrum for his news enterprise, if you will, a way to turn his station on a dime from fundy right to center right-ish as the elections loom.

There's evolution in politics and media. After all, once upon a time, Democrats were segregationists and racists--and now all theose Democrats call themselves Republicans. CNN used to be Ted Turner populist--now it's the CIA news network.

Shit happens. Nothing remains static.

[Dr Fate]

29. Kennedy does not sponsor fundraising parties for Hatch. Nor Kerry for Lott.

I am aware of the Senate Boys Club. I have Republican friends myself- that is not the issue.

I wanna know what other DEMS were given FOX sponsored fundraisers.

Are there others besides Hill?

[MADem]

36. Well, to be fair, you'd have to ask how many NEW YORK DEMS.

Murdoch IS a constituent. His company employs a boatload of New Yorkers. The damn HQ is in New Yawk City. And the event was a BREAKFAST, not a rubber chicken dinner with a twelve piece combo, dancing, door prizes and a few thousand in attendance.

If you were going to be fair about it.

He has also given money to Senator Chuck Schumer. It's called "Don't shit where you eat."

His donations over the years include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman (back in the 90s)....he gave a bit to Harold Ford, but not much, as well.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=2TJD5&txtName=Murdoch,%20Rupert%20&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N

Like I said, he isn't ideological. Anyone who thinks that is foolish. He's just a greedy businessman, looking to gain advantage. Nothing more, nothing less. Most of his dough has gone to the GOP lately, because they're the ones who've had the power over the years. As that changes, so will he. Mark my words. It's all about the money.

[Lerkfish]

38. donations are one thing: publicly SPONSORING fundraisers? do you have a list of other politicians

Murdoch has done that for?

don't confuse the two.

CYA donations are not the same as publicly linking yourself by name to a candidate to sponsor a fundraiser.

I"m unaware of anyone else he's treated exactly that way. Please list others if you know of any. thanks.

[MADem]

44. It was a little breakfast, not a Gambling Nite with a Disco Band event.

After he finished with her, he ran off to do one for McCain. Snarkily reported, here: http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/18/the_murdoch_fundraiser_for_hillary_clinton_under_the_radar.php

And see, the thing is, he doesn't have to give her a dime. All he has to do is invite people who will contribute. That 'bundling' technique, they still haven't gotten rid of that in CFR laws.

Keep in mind, she is HIS SENATOR. And a likely Presidential candidate. If Faux were HQ'd in Chicago, Obama'd be feeling the love I'd wager.

If she had a thousand bucks for every time someone said "Murdoch gave Clinton a fundraiser" she'd probably have a million times more money than she raked in at that little breakfast.

Hell, McCain got a LUNCH. On the same damned day. Talk about playing both ends against the middle....

[Dr Fate]

41. So the answer is "no." No other DEM candidates were given fundraising parties by FOX news.

A mere "consitiuent?"

I thought he was an Austrailian who made a living using our air waves to attack Democrats.

I see a slight difference between accepting a check (although I dont like that either) and hob-knobbing with him at a party they threw especially for you.

[MADem]

47. Oh, come on. How many New York Senators are running for President?

Give me a break. If you cannot see why he is doing this, I cannot help you.

It's a business decision. It was a BREAKFAST. Not a hobnobbing party--a lousy fucking BREAKFAST. He spent no money, he simply hosted the thing. It was a way for him to curry favor on the cheap.

And then he ran off to do a LUNCH for McCAIN.

He's a US citizen. And if you don't understand, after I've said this ad nauseum, that he doesn't GIVE A SHIT about "Democratic" or "Republican" principles, I cannot help you. Don't make him out to be more than he is--a craven, greedy asshole who will turn on a dime if he can pick up that dime and keep it.

All he cares about is being rich and getting richer. As I said, if Americans wanted to throw retarded babies to the lions by a thirty percent margin, he'd have Dildo Really touting it... con brio.

[Dr Fate]

52. I can see why Murdoch would do it. I just cant see why Hillary would.

I would think that our international Man of Mystery was "poison" as far as political perception goes.

Dont confuse things- I understand Murdoch's motives are and who he is- I'm just uncomfortable with the fact that Hillary went along with attending the party.

I dont really like the fact that other DEMS accepted checks either- so you are right-it's not just Hillary-she just seems to be the most illustrative example, since this was an actual FOX hosted fundraiser where she hob-knobbed & shook hands with them.

[MADem]

56. Answer: The Mushy Middle.

Faux may be the GOP station of record, but not all Faux viewers are GOP. Many are lazy, others are uninformed, and some are flat out STUPID. Those groups are a big chunk of the electorate. And some are easily led, like "Reagan Democrats." We'll call them "Clinton Republicans" this year.

There are people who are so stupid that if Dildo Really is forced to say something like "Now, I hate to admit it, but you heard it hear first, on this issue, SENATOR CLINTON IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and for this reason, I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR HER. Now, she MAY NOT BE MY FAVORITE, but SHE IS THE BEST CANDIDATE in THE RACE."

Picture it. On his stupid talking points thing he does. With the chryons and everything. I'd pay to see it! And laugh my ass off.

Murdoch tells Ailes who tells Poopface to say that or lose his paycheck. He says it, because he's an organ grinder monkey. And STUPID PEOPLE (Ooooooh, look at the pretty colors, the big boobs, the red lipstick) say "OK...if it's good enough for Hannity/Dildo Really/Name any Faux nitwit, then it is good enough for me. After all, they are fair and balanced..."

Realistically, it ain't likely to happen. But it doesn't even have to be an ENDORSEMENT. It can be as simple as an interview where she has good lighting and softball questions, and the odd remark along the lines of "Gee, I hate to admit it, Alan (Colmes) but she makes a HELLUVA lotta SENSE." Well, if she's making sense to HANNITY, who are we to argue? If Ollie North says "I like her defense posture better than (fill in GOP candidate)" then morons will say "It's good enough for Ollie, it's good enough for me..."

Not a full-on assault, but a little nudge here and there. Depress the rabid GOP base, and give the mouth breathers permission to vote for her--that's all it would take.

[Dr Fate]

62. I wont buy everything you are selling just yet- but you explained it well.

Thanks.

[David Zephyr]

35. Here's one link. You can look up more. There's a lot of "there" there, Dr Fate

Here's one link of many of the stories that have documented this cozy relationship.

As to your question, I don't know of other Democrats lunching with him. They partied with him out here recently on the west coast.

This is the same Fox that is truly smearing Obama. That's pretty sorry.


http://www.observer.com/archive/Archive_6202005-25.html

[MADem]

65. I gotta just put this out, to respond to your angst.

How many FAUX viewers are gonna VOTE for Obama, anyway? In the primary, or if he makes it to the General???

How many?

I suspect I have more fingers and toes, frankly.

They're preaching to their choir.

Stop worrying about a market that won't buy your product on a grand day....it's a very specific market right now. A filthy, dirty, rotten and nasty market.

You won't find anything you want to buy in that market.


Move on, to more productive venues.

[AtomicKitten]

30. I don't agree with your analysis.

... and no doubt what I say here will be construed as me being a Hillary supporter in spite of the fact that I will not vote for her nor any of the others in the primary because of their IWR vote.

Hillary has not had vocal and proud sponsorship of the Iraq war, her pre-vote speech said quite the contrary and, in fact, if anyone John Edwards is the one that co-sponsored the IWR, not Hillary.

Secondly, those running for president don't have the luxury of suggesting straightforward measures as to getting the hell out of Dodge; those that do are not under the same scrutiny and pressure. However, she has proposed leaving Iraq earlier, i.e. by 3/08 as opposed to 8/08 suggested by the rest of the rank-and-file Dems in Congress, for whatever that is worth, I would guess not much.

The "underhanded" attempts to prevent Dean from becoming DNC Chair and then "ousting him" are internet lore based on tacky statements by James Carville woven into a conspiracy that you reiterate here with absolutely no proof but a whole lot of speculation fueled by prejudice.

Also just about every serious Democratic candidate takes corporate money, yes even from Murdoch, and that says more about the state of campaign finance than anything about the candidates themselves. Until a leash is put on campaign finance and changes made across the board, it is unreasonable to complain and unproductive to advocate hamstringing our candidates.

And Nader declaring he will run "if" is a red herring; it is clear he is out there quacking because he intends to run anyway. Convenient to the lay blame for that at Hillary's doorstep for all concerned, but we've seen this scenario played out over and over again each presidential election.

No, I'd say there are others than just Hillary supporters that have a bone to pick with the way Hillary is denigrated here at DU with hyped exaggerations, speculation, and just flat-out gratuitous bashing. Although I won't vote for her in the primary, looking ahead if she does get the nomination, I wonder if any of you even think that this unfair and often untruthful characterization of her here 24/7 is really a good idea. Quite frankly, that is tantamount to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face and doesn't strike me as particularly bright in light of the bigger picture.

But then again that is the same question asked every president election. This really has less to do with Hillary and more to do with the system. Although it is convenient to make Hillary the scapegoat for that displeasure, the truth is it is the election system that sticks in the craw of most here. And handicapping our Democratic candidate - whoever that may be - in my opinion is a terrible idea.

And I fully realize, that the pragmatic way I view things makes me a pariah and puts me in the minority here.

[Dr Fate]

31. Her pre-vote speech was not the only thing she said about the invasion.

She said many things that were in support of the invasion and continued occupation-long after the speech- and long before she changed her tune after the focus groups stopped liking the war.

Focusing on the NON BINDING speech-where her mouth said "no" but her BINDING vote said "yes" is not giving people the entire picture.

Hillary supported the invasion and the occupation- if she didnt, then I never heard her say "we are making a big a mistake" or "We dont need to go over there" or "I oppose this invasion" or "We need to get out now before more troops die"- or anything remotely like that in the weeks leading up to the invasion, or in the subsequent months afterwards...

[AtomicKitten]

32. as many others have pointed out

... the IWR was not a vote for the invasion, but it was a vote for what was tantamount for a blank check, which is why I cannot forgive it. I, however, object to the vote being mischaracterized for the sole purpose of bashing one that voted 'yes' and not the others.

Hillary is a centrist, but she is not rightwing nor is she a hawk.

The irony of that is most here consider centrists to be rightwing and hawkish, but that is a misnomer.

[Dr Fate]

34. I dont want to hijack this thread with a re-hashed argument.

But the only people who did not know that the vote to invade Iraq was going to be used by Bush for that exact purpose, are people making an effort to defend Hillary.

Me, my grandma, my barber, my bartender, Bush, the entire "yes" voting GOP and the rest of the Whole World Watching knew what it was. Everyone but Hill.

You have heard me say it before, you know how I feel...

[David Zephyr]

37. You said it better than I could have.

It was clearly a vote giving Bush the authority to make war in Iraq. And, by the way, my barber, my bartender all knew what the vote was about also.

[Dr Fate]

43. Of course your barber & bartender all knew what the vote was about also- Hill did too..

And so did her defenders.

Bartenders and barbers are no idiots- and neither is Hill.

[AtomicKitten]

40. you don't get it

It's not just Hillary. 27 other Senators voted for the IWR, some running for president. I'm not impressed by their explanations or apologies; it does not mitigate the vote. Of course we all knew what the turd was going to do with it, ergo the outrage we share.

Please peruse this list because you are dumping this at the doorstep of one person - the precise point where we part company in this conversation:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[Dr Fate]

42. No-that is your problem with me- I DO get it. The sins of other DEMS dont save Hillary.

It's not about Hillary per se- it's about people on a message board -many of the DLC volunteers/enthusists who constantly piss down my neck & tell me it's raining- in that they are suggesting that Hillary "was never for the war"- BS. She was.

Kerry was for the war. He has made it CLEAR to me that he is on my side now. Same with Edwards and several others-they were indeed for it- but now they have made it clear that they want to come clean and join me.

When it is CLEAR to me that Hillary and her "far left", anti-war Bashing DLC is on my side on this, I'll let up.

[AtomicKitten]

45. I don't think any of the Dems were FOR the war.

In fact, I am reasonably certain that their 'yes' votes all were calculated moves to preserve their political backsides. I think they all suck and none of them should be even considered for president.

And sadly most of the maneuvering and parsing of words by ALL the candidates is ALL politics ALL the time. Ugh.

Our point of disagreement is (1) I am not moved nor impressed by the dog and pony apologies after the fact; it's moot re: issues of war and death, and (2) I don't set HRC apart from the rest of the pile of charlatans; you do.

I fully realize my across-the-board wrath is in the minority here at DU (and not appreciated), and as a result my time spent here is dwindling.

I now as much as ever pray Gore jump in or Obama gets the nomination, somebody that did not have their hand in this mess. I think that is critical for our nation to move forward.

Peace.

[Dr Fate]

49. I do. If they were "against this invasion" before we went over, they could have said so on TV. n/t

n/t

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

50. It is unfortunate that you consider it an insult

... to point out that much of that spread around here at DU is unsubstantiated emotional reaction to news tidbits usually arising out of blog opinion pieces rather than actual fact. But that still does not make it substantiated. And just as I predicted you immediately assume I support Hillary because I don't automatically jump on the bash HRC train.

You have been taken in by the anti-Clinton lore, and, yes, it is lore perpetrated by an agenda as insidious on the far left as it is the right. The brouhaha that arose from James Carville's dumbass comments do not rise to anything more than players within the party sharpening their elbows and jostling around in a crowded room. And "dearie" I have been working within the Democratic Party for years and know of which I speak. Your emotional enmeshment in politics is duly noted; I understand the nature of the chess game and don't get my knickers in a twist and take sides over crap that belongs on Entertainment Tonight of Politics.

I think it is infinitely more valuable to tell the truth and try to find common ground than to participate in witch hunts against Democrats that seems to be a favorite pass time here at DU. But please knock yourself out. Dearie.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

54. I remain undecided and I agree with your major points.

The system sucks, too, but there's insufficient motivation to repair it. And it's too convoluted to place the blame where it really belongs--on the lack of will of the American people, who fear that aggressive campaign finance reform will RAISE THEIR TAXES.

Of course, the lobbyists hate it too, so they'll go out of their way to scare people into thinking that CFR will, indeed RAISE THEIR TAXES. And the incumbents, who have big warchests and have the advantage of the high ground, have no problem letting the lobbyists and others sell us on the idea that CFR changes will RAISE THOSE TAXES!!!!

Even John McCain, MISTER CFR himself, has said 'Fuck that CFR shit' and is working to pull in the dough hand over fist (and Murdoch did a fundraiser for HIM, too!).

[AtomicKitten]

55. the money spent this election cycle

... is predicted to be obscene. I understand the disgust people feel, to say the least, but unless across-the-board measures are taken, I see no point in hamstringing our candidates.

Corporations are masters of the universe. America doesn't appear to have the stomach to make America once again government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

[MADem]

57. Aww, it ain't fascism, it's fascism LITE! NT

[AtomicKitten]

58. apparently easier to digest

[The Magistrate]

61. You Make Some Excellent Points, Ma'am

[MADem]

51. Regularly lunches? I kind of doubt that. Hell, the two Clintons are barely on the same

continent many days. And HRC is in DC when the Senate is in session, so Rupert would have to travel.

[Dr Fate]

53. In fairness, I doubted the extent of that too.

Or at least I will doubt it until it is confirmed.